I want to make a broader argument, but first need to deal with a small point raised by Owen Jones in his front-page piece in the New Statesman this week.

“[Labour] are missing the boat,” John McDonnell MP tells Owen Jones on the issue of the occupations. Editor of Occupied Times Steve Maclean tells him: “I think a lot of people are very disappointed that there’s this grass-roots movement and sentiment, and Labour isn’t leading or driving it.”

I’m sorry but this is highly naive.
Ed Miliband is fully aware of the #occupy movement, here and in the United States. He keeps a track of online conversation better than many assume. The other day on PMQs he was channelling #OWS language:

He says we are all in this together but he lets the 1 per cent get away with it while the other 99 per cent are squeezed and fear losing their jobs.

But that aside, there is no need or upside to the Labour party hugging the #OLSX lot.

1) It could easily back-fire. Anything the activists do would then be blown up into a controversy and taken to some Labour MP who would then have to answer Kay Burley asking: ‘do you still endorse these crazed, blood-thirsty vandals?‘. It just would not work because the media will assume Labour endorse anything that anyone connected with #OSLX does and try and embarrass them over it.

2) I’m not sure the activists would like it. Owen partly admits this – it’s unlikely many would want Labour to work with them. It would instantly lead to splits within the camp because while some are pro-Labour, others hate it vehemently. If any senior Labour member came to speak, it would invite accusations that ‘Labour is trying to take over’. At Netroots we had just two Labour MPs speaking on the platform (on specific issues) and yet people accused Netroots being a Labour front. It’s just not worth the effort.

3) There is no upside for Labour in doing so. Ed Miliband spoke at the TUC March in March. What was the upside? A few people booed (which the media loved to pick up on) and they simultaneously juxtaposed him with images of shop-windows getting smashed. But it was important for him to speak then because several hundred thousand people were there. #occupyLSX remains small and most people still don’t want what it stands for or means.

I can’t actually see what would be the gain for senior Labour politicians to hug the movement (though Ed Balls endorsed their general message on BBC QT last night).

4) There’s no need to. There are some lefties who will look for any cause Labour has not endorsed yet and say ‘you see, this is why I don’t like Labour‘. That is their prerogative. But I have no idea why Owen Jones wants Labour to endorse every left-wing movement going.

We can all do our own thing, help each other when needed and endorse each other’s actions in tacit or explicit ways. There is absolutely no requirement for Labour to endorse every protest or movement, especially one that is still very small and may end up badly. In the same way it’s not incumbent on the unions to agree with everything others do just because they’re (broadly) a left movement.

Anyway – as I said, this is a small and obvious point to make. I have broader issues with Owen’s article that I’ll get to. But I want to head off this silly notion that senior Labour people are not endorsing #occupy because they’re not paying attention or don’t care. Neither of those two sentiments are true.

Oh here we go, once of those baffling Sunny Hundal “let me read the left the Riot Act” pieces.

I haven’t called for Labour to officially endorse Occupy. I wrote a report specifically on the Occupy movement. Obviously that required discussing the Labour Party question – so I just reported as accurately as I could how protesters felt about it, as well as how figures at the top of the party felt about it when I wrote it (which was nearly 2 weeks ago). I very clearly pointed out that “The last thing most of these activists want is for their cause to be co-opted by the Labour leadership.”

The issue with the Labour leadership as things stand is that it has yet to present a coherent alternative to Tory cuts; and – as John McDonnell points out in my piece – a triangulation strategy remains in place. That led Ed Miliband to mistakenly – and farcically – denounce the June 30th strikes, which only succeeded in annoying large sections of the labour movement and attracting derision from everybody else.

As Steve Maclean points out, there is growing anger at what this government is doing but it is not being properly channelled or led by the Labour Party as things currently stand. I would like that to change.

Personally, I would like the Labour leadership to be dragged in a position of offering an alternative to cuts – kicking and screaming – by pressure from below.

I agree that tactically the Labour leadership is better off keeping its distance. The Occupy movement is able to resonate with common fears and concerns about the way the economy is being run, and associating itself with a brand as deeply contaminated as Labour’s would only damage its credibility. In turn, this would backfire on Miliband, because as long as the Occupy movement is successful, it creates space on the left-hand side of mainstream discourse, which helps him advance the narrative set out in his conference speech. Miliband’s politics are not the same as those of #OccupyLSX. But he can benefit from what they’re doing, and I’m sure he realises that.

Have to say that when push came to shove, Labour lacked the balls to support the people that they were suppose to represent, Don’t get me started about Kinnock.
But this is why the Labour Party have lost five million supporters and they still refuse to make any meaningful positive statements about the unions, and are luke warm about the anti-capitalist protestors.

These are all reasons why it isn’t in Labour’s self interest to support the #occupy movement (which covers ‘won’t’) but I don’t see any argument for why they ‘shouldn’t’ from the point of view of others.

Sunny’s argument here is nothing more than a restatement of the classic left-liberal position, whereby people with principles are ‘naive’ and the best we can hope for is for a nicer deckchair arrangement on the Titanic. This recent piece on the Exiled site explains this fundamental (and chronic) weakness with the liberal position:

Key quote: “Liberals make no challenge against a society’s given socioeconomic framework. Instead, liberalism promises only to open up that very same framework to the greatest number of people. That’s it.

“Lifestyle liberals tend to express proper environmental pieties and feel very strongly about respecting the rights of racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities. All of these are perfectly admirable liberal qualities and attitudes…but as modes of action and behavior they do not necessarily follow from a coherent political philosophy or a theory of government.”

It is of no surprise that you have come out with this apologist drivel Sunny.
Sure the Labour Party dont have to do anything. Indeed I suspect they cant do anything. They are plum out of ideas and as a result are increasingly irrelevant to todays politics. When you speak of ‘upside’ I assume you regard the subtext strategy for Labour is to do nothing but wait for the Tories to collapse the economy and then magically be elected again. I suggest this is a very dangerous strategy since desent will remain unfocused and ultimately depoliticised .Furthermore, traditionally social unrest/strikes etc are more likely to turn politics to the right.
In the past I always voted for the lions but in the last few days even some christians
are gaining my respect. At least some of them are directing an ethical stance on current issues.

Good comment there from Owen I have to say… I sort of agree with you both in a way!

I wish I had a party to vote for who backed the protest or at least the basic sentiment behind it. I am sick to death of hearing them derided and mocked by people who then go on to demonstrate they have no bloody clue what they’re talking about. And I want a politician to have the guts to say so.

On the other hand Labour will drive away a lot of potential supporters, and narrow the message, and make an easy hit for anti-protest voices eg “so how did Labour address this when in power?” (the answer being most probably not at all.) So the protest would lose credibility.Interestingly even some Tories like Steve Baker have expressed support for much of what the protesters are doing – the whole point being that you don’t have to left and or Labour to believe the current system and way the crisis was handled is completely ridiculous.

But it doesn’t sound from Owen’s comment that he was actually advocating this, and what he writes below makes perfect sense.

There are ways to support a very popular sentiment without necessarily endorsing all or any actions of one particular group. The Labour Party dont want to be drawn into attacking high finance because politically they depend on it. Thats why events will over take them.

Wow, he picked up on the movement’s slogan which has been splashed around every media going. Now that really is incontrovertible evidence that Miliband assiduously follows the every nuance of the debate. Absolutely laughable, Sunny.

“I am sick to death of hearing them derided and mocked by people who then go on to demonstrate they have no bloody clue what they’re talking about. And I want a politician to have the guts to say so. ”

Hear, hear! Actually, I think there’s a general tendency for people to sneer at protesters and activists in place of actually offering any valid criticisms of their actions. You certainly get a lot of ad homs – how many people do you think are having a go at the Occupy guys now by throwing around terms like “in the real world”, “middle-class whining”, “lazy students”, “self-indulgent” and the like? If you can’t beat ’em, undermine ’em!

On whether or not I’m naive: doesn’t it really boil down to whether what I said is factually true or not, and the fact that Sunny has completely misrepresented what I actually *did* say?

I didn’t say that *I* am disappointed in Labour. I have never voted for them, and am not at all surprised – therefore not really disappointed – that they are merely Tory Lite these days. Disappointment implies that you had some expectation in the first place. I did not.

I said, “I think a lot of people are very disappointed that there’s this grass-roots movement and sentiment, and Labour isn’t leading or driving it.”

Now, we could debate what constitutes “a lot”, but I doubt there have been many times in the past when so many people firmly on the left felt no association with the Labour party whatsoever.

Whether or not people are right to be disappointed in Labour is debatable, but that a significant proportion of leftists are, is not in my opinion.

I can see why pointing this out might be uncomfortable for people with an irrational penchant for Labour, but that doesn’t make what I said untrue, or, naive.

Owen Jones is at it yet again with his anecdotal stories presented as facts. Well, let me re-iterate to all those on the left: the current crisis has come at a time of record government spending and a record ‘poor welfare’ state (versus welfare for the rich) as well as record regulation. And what has the result been? Record debt, inflation, stagnation, a permanent underclass of unemployed despite 2,000,000 jobs created, jobs going overseas as well as cronyism. What people such as Owen Jones, and perhaps some of the protestors, have yet to realise, is that the problem is ‘crony capitalism’ – whereby the state interferes in the market often with it’s buddies (i.e. the Goldman-Sachs employees who oversaw the repeal of Glass-Stegal, the creation of debt based ‘investment’ tools). Free-market capitalism does not allow for tax-payer bailouts a la Iceland, which is now out of it’s problems. Government is the problem – we have three left-of-centre parties who believe the same thing (and has the EU issue stopped the hysterical lefties from believing Cameron to be Eurosceptic?). Government needs to be reduced and reduce massively. The only way to do this in the long term, is to reduce taxes. Government is there to promote freedom and rule of law, not to micromanage people. The banks should have been allowed to go bankrupt, the bankers arrested, this time only the government should have protected citizens savings accounts until redeposited and we should have left the EU. Laws should have been passed banning debt based trading and separating investment and savings banks. This would have been a start.

The issue with the Labour leadership as things stand is that it has yet to present a coherent alternative to Tory cuts;

Other than ‘we oppose all cuts’ – what would be a coherent alternative? Also, this isn’t directly about the cuts is it? So I’m not sure how that comes into it.

Calling it triangulation is naive. The problem is that Labour’s position on the cuts is a nuanced one – that they would have to cut but by a much smaller amount and in a different way. I don’t see how that’s “triangulation” – which means something totally different.

but I don’t see any argument for why they ‘shouldn’t’ from the point of view of others.

They shouldn’t for reason one – it could easily blow up in people’s face.

I don’t really care for the usual suspects coming here and exclaiming ‘oh Labour is missing the zeitgeist and are just as fascist as Tories and yadayada’ – engage with the points above or don’t bother.

Steve – the piece wasn’t directly aimed at you, I simply quoted you, which looks like you want Labour to endorse #occupylsx – I simply pointed out why it won’t happen.

Lou – I wish I had a party to vote for who backed the protest or at least the basic sentiment behind it.

they do back the sentiment behind it. Just not the specific action itself. It’s really that simple.

There are material reasons why Labour can’t speak out. They are in disarray,they have no direction and they cannot afford to disengage from the City because like the Tories they are a party of the Capitalists. If you dont believe that then you must have been on holiday somewhere since 1997. (You’ve missed a few wars as well by the way)

Its all very well for you to rail at contributors but these are the facts, sad as they are.

Sunny has some valid points here, especially point 2. Steve Maclean is entitled to his view, but I don’t see any evidence that the Labour Party has a mandate to lead or drive #occupyLSX.

Labour Party activists getting involved as individuals is fine. Involvement as a party is something entirely different. The strength of #occupyLSX is its diversity. Hitching its wagon to a single party is not in its interests. And, despite what some Labour activists seem to believe, that applies to you as much as it does the Trots.

More involvement from trade unionists, on the other hand, would be good. If people want to put their energy into building links, that’s where they should be focusing.

Firstly, I’m Labour. Always have been, (probably) always will; and secondly I am getting to know Steve Maclean and other Occupy activists and rather enjoy chewing the fat with them. The way I see it, Labour would be foolish to ignore the Occupy movement – and to be fair, I don’t think it is doing. Indeed much of what the Occupy movement stands for and the way it has (thus far) conducted itself will inevitably resonate and appeal to those of us with left-wing principles and consciences – and particularly those of us that also have romantic tendencies!

However, the pragmatic reality is that Labour is a parliamentary party, and to be elected to affect any form of change, we need to appeal to a broad, largely moderate and “conservative-with-a-small-c” electorate. Therefore Labour candidates are unlikely to want to be too closely affiliated with a movement that may, MAY, at any point behave in a way that actually alienates the voters we need to support us if we are again to hold office.

Now, some on the far left, or indeed those calling for a whole new system of government will point to this dance as the “game” – and all that they see as wrong with parliamentary democracy. I would say that I cannot see an anarcho-state of autonomous self-government materialising in the western world any time soon. But THAT is not to say that the Occupy movement has nothing to say, nor that it shouldn’t hold us to account for – frankly – our failure to better regulate banks when we last held office, and other shortcomings.

When previously debating with Steve, I have used the example of the Suffragettes. It needed a radical vanguard of activists to raise the issue, and act as the conscience of the people. However, it was a movement often dismissed as “lunatic” or “marginal”, and itself was weakened, divided and demoralised by the end of WW1. But 1918, then 1928 saw the parliamentary finally system “catch up” and enact the Representation of the People Acts – finally bringing universal suffrage and making voting rights a more “mainstream” issue in contemporary thought and debate.

The left needs the full spectrum of movements within it to keep debate alive, and to keep the innovation and “correction” of a progressive community. We do not need to have mutual membership necessarily, but nor should we be enemies, or we risk becoming the Judean Peoples Front vs the Peoples Front of Judea.

So, tonight, I am missing my local GC meeting, and going to the Occupy Exeter assembly instead. I haven’t packed a sleeping bag just yet, but I shall certainly listen and – I am sure – learn.

The problem is that Labour’s position on the cuts is a nuanced one – that they would have to cut but by a much smaller amount and in a different way.

The stated Labour policy is still the Darling one isn’t it? The one in Labour’s manifesto? The cuts envisaged there really aren’t ‘much’ smaller than the coalition ones, a matter of perhaps 1% difference. And the ‘different way’ has never been spelled out has it? Other than the fact that Labour have opposed every single cut proposed by the coalition, and also opposed its tax rises.

Labour are already, as Sunny says identified with ‘occupy’ and if there were any doubt, the Popular People`s Front Of Judea tiff above dispels it.
If they seriously wanted to be a government they would strenuously distance themselves from it. 99% of people think malodorous yoofs have nothing to add but whining self absorption.
It will be even more fun when the Public sector go on strike for their golden pensions. Ed backs that and he is toast.,..but he is bought and paid for, again, no need to.

One problem for Labour’s front bench is that they mostly have no real experience of working with a campaign – unless you count Ed Miliband’s historic boycott of “Formal Hall” at Oxford. They just think in this spin-doctor, special-adviser-y media positioning way, which is actually pretty rigid. They don’t have many people with trade union experience, so they don’t know how to balance between an active campaigning minority and a broader rank and file. If they had some of this flexibility and experience, they might be able to relate to the Occupy LSX – tbh it isn’t really so complicated. they don’t want to turn up and say “your great, we love you”, and be liable for all LSX does. But nor do they want to be “stay very still and don’t mention the troublemakers”. So the obvious thing to do – send a front bench minister to have a “dialogue”, a chat, and come away with “good luck to them, but lets all make sure and be nice” type message. There might be other dividends of having some kind of dialogue – brokering some kind of peace about remembrance sunday ? christ even the Standard had a big favourable article about LSX yesterday, and Cameron is having to make those “mmm , capitalism, can be a bit harsh, god botherers have a point” noises. But Ed and Co are at present sitting very stiffly – when I was there the other day some very straight middle aged woman was pressing a £10er into the Occupy LSX desk while a woman vicar beamed away behind her, and not one shadow minister can turn up for at least a chat ?

In the FT today, Bob Diamond, head of Barclays Bank, is reported as saying in a BBC Today interview this morning that the Banks must accept responsibility for what went wrong. In the interview – which I listened to – he repeatedly said that banks must work towards a situation where banks could fail without taxpayer support and without causing systemic instability:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/292c4e48-0658-11e1-8a16-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1cmIopk8y

This is right. Labour have nothing in common with the Occupy movement at all. They by and large support Capitalism in its current form and do not want anything like the major change the Occupy movement is calling for. When the occupy movement is big enough not to ignore which ever Political party is in power will pretend it was their idea all along. That is the nature of Politics.

I do not believe in the power of Politics to change things. People change and Politicians follow- Maxi Jazz from Faithless.

[…] and Sunny Hundal at Liberal Conspracy outlines why Labour doesn’t, and shouldn’t have to, endorse the Occupy movement , although the public is more supportive of the protest than the media wants us to […]